CHEDI Vs. SONA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record argued that in the available circumstance of the case the petitioner has valued the suit on the basis of the land revenue of concerned land, on which the property is situated and accordingly on twenty times of land revenue the suit was valued and court fees was paid accordingly. In such premises no further valuation or court fees is required in the matter and prayed for setting aside the earlier order. In continuation he said that initially the suit was filed in the hear 1998 subsequently in the year 2002 the petitioners were dispossess from the disputed property and that is why they have filed the impugned application of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in the year 2013 to insert the prayer for possession of such property and some relevant facts in that regard and the same ought to have been allowed by the trial court but the same has been dismissed under wrong premises and prayed for admission and allowing this petition.

(3.) Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments I have carefully perused the papers placed on record along with both the impugned orders. I am of the considered view that for the purpose of valuation of the suit and payment of court fees only the averments of the plaint could be considered and the objections and the averments of the written statement are not relevant to decide such question as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Babu Sukhram Singh Vs. Ram Dular Singh, 1958 AIR(SC) 245.